Last update: 01/04/2014
An authoritarian management style, also known as an autocratic style, is characterized by individual control over all decisions made with little or no input from group members. Authoritarian leaders tend to make choices based on their own ideas and judgment, and rarely take advice from subordinates. The authoritarian management style, in comparison with, assumes absolute, sole control over the group.
This style of management can be useful in some cases - for example, when decisions must be made quickly, without consulting a large group of people. Some projects require a strong leader to ensure tasks are completed quickly and efficiently.
Have you ever worked with a group of students or co-workers on a project that was derailed due to poor organization, lack of leadership skills on the part of the manager, and inability to set deadlines for the work? If so, chances are your group or team's results have suffered greatly. In such situations, a strong leader who uses an autocratic management style can take responsibility for the work of the group: he will distribute tasks to different group members and set precise deadlines for completing the project.
In particularly tense situations, such as during military conflicts, group members may actually prefer an autocratic management style over all others. This allows them to focus on specific tasks without having to worry about making complex decisions. It also allows group members to become highly skilled in performing any specific duties that can benefit the group.
Although an autocratic leadership style can sometimes be effective, there are still frequent cases when this style brings problems to the team. People who tend to overuse the autocratic style are often seen as domineering dictators, and their behavior can often lead to discontent among the rest of the group.
Because authoritarian leaders make decisions without consulting the group, people may resent their lack of opportunity to bring new ideas to the group's work. The researchers also found that authoritarianism often leads to a lack of creative solutions to current problems, which can ultimately have a negative impact on group performance.
Although the most authoritarian management style already has some potential pitfalls, leaders can learn to use elements of this style wisely. For example, the authoritarian style can be used effectively in situations where the leader is the most experienced and qualified member of the group, or the one who has access to information that other group members may not have.
The management style is very often not consciously adopted by the manager; it comes from his personal ideas about leadership, from his character, temperament, from the knowledge he has acquired about the position of director. Many social factors also influence leadership style. Many times I have encountered directors, and especially with directors, who after 3-5 years of management become real tyrants and tyrannize the entire team. Unfortunately, the province is simply replete with such directors. And they are not uncommon in capitals. In order to correct the style, it is necessary to find out what management styles are generally identified in management practice, and how they affect the overall work of the enterprise.
Why study the director’s work style at all? This question can only arise among amateurs who do not strive for development, who believe that their enterprise will never go anywhere in life. This is a terrible mistake, a colossal delusion! Business can present serious surprises; internal revolutions have not been canceled. And the external influences of competitors and new legislative initiatives of the state are successfully tolerated only when the team stands behind its director and follows him without discussing details. What leadership style can achieve this effect? This is what this article will discuss.
So, in management the following management styles are distinguished: authoritarian, democratic, liberal-anarchist, inconsistent, situational.
The authoritarian style is also called dictatorial or directive. A leader in a team with this style behaves harshly, he sets certain boundaries for work and very strictly controls their implementation. Decisions at such an enterprise are made by the director alone, there are no discussions with top management, each of the managers works only in his own narrow niche, no one can understand the entire process. Moreover, an authoritarian leader deliberately takes on many functions so that no one else can manage and claim his place. In the case of an individual entrepreneur, none of the relatives or heirs of the business are allowed to manage the business.
All decisions made are not subject to discussion; strict control over their implementation is established; if something is not implemented, then strict administrative measures are taken. The personality of the person, the employee, fades into the background. The effectiveness of the method is high only if the director receives to manage an enterprise in which there is no order, discipline, no profit and no proper sales volume. At first, when the company achieves good results, it is this style that will help restore order. In any other case, an authoritarian style does more harm to the company than it benefits.
This management style suppresses the initiative and creativity of employees; innovations are introduced very slowly and ineffectively. With an authoritarian style, erroneous, one-sided decisions are often made that are understandable to only one person. Employees become passive, dissatisfaction with the place of work, the company, their position, position, colleagues, the whole business and the general system grows. In such a team, sycophancy, intrigue, gossip begin to flourish more and more, and people experience constant stress. As a result, people either leave this place, or begin to get sick often, or simply turn into opportunists and are only concerned with extracting personal benefits at work. A director needs to master this leadership style only when all sorts of cataclysms and emergency situations occur.
In this style, the leader must be a highly professional manager, psychologist, teacher, and production worker. He, of course, makes decisions on his own, but arranges general discussions. Moreover, he himself considers the final version of the decision both before and after general discussions. The decisions made are clear to all employees; even during their implementation, proactive proposals are accepted and adjustments are made. Monitoring of implementation is carried out not only by the manager, but also by the employees. From the director, subordinates see understanding, goodwill, and a desire to develop their personalities together with the company. A manager with a democratic management style observes the inclinations and talents of employees, tries to train, guide, even changing the type of activity and position.
This style is quite effective and promotes healthy growth and development of the company's areas of activity. Labor productivity and sales volumes increase, employees become proactive, active, they turn into a real team. There is one danger in this style of management - if control is weakened, it can turn into anarchy. The manager must closely monitor that discipline is not violated and that there is organizational order in the team. A leader in this management system must be very professional, efficient, and an example in everything for his subordinates.
This is the most neutral management style, one might even say conniving. This is what democracy grows into, for which no one watches and builds its framework. In this atmosphere, everyone expresses their opinion, defends their point of view, and does not hear others. And even if a certain policy is adopted to a common decision, everyone continues to act at their own discretion. The leader of the liberal-democratic style does not have the necessary professional and psychological knowledge and skills, does not hide this, and does not enjoy respect.
And besides, such a leader doesn’t care much that they treat him like that, he does his own thing, doesn’t really bother anyone, and everyone feels comfortable about it. It turns out that tasks are set, completed, there is a result, but all this is done at full speed, and often the movement does not lead exactly to where it was planned, and even to the wrong place at all. The psychological climate in such a team is not conducive to work; it is unfavorable for creativity and for establishing order. In such companies, motivation is very rarely done; there is no sense of encouragement from other team members. There is no benefit from this style in any situation, only harm to work.
Leaders who suffer from this style tend to jump from one style to another. They then begin to strictly control the work, then they let go of control so much that their subordinates begin to organize complete self-government and anarchy. But sometimes healthy democracy emerges in such a team. Such tilts in one direction or the other give the company instability in the market, ensure inconsistent implementation of all planned actions, and non-compliance with company policies.
The effectiveness of management is low, and most often it is managed in this way by unprepared, impulsive people who once studied management, but did not finish their studies. In a team with such management there are always a lot of conflicts, work or personal problems.
The most effective management style is situational. The manager applies in the company those methods and methods of management that are necessary for a given employee or group of employees, but it is best if the entire team is at the same level of development. Therefore, when recruiting employees for the first time or re-recruiting, you must try to select specialists according to their level of development so that they are all at approximately the same stage of production development.
If the team is at a low level of development, that is, they do not want to work and do not know how to do it, then it is best to apply the following actions: issue clear and strict instructions, tell them in detail what to do, constantly monitor every step. If something goes wrong, point out mistakes and even punish for deliberate failure to follow instructions. If something works out well, then praise and encourage employees.
The second level of team development, that is, average, is characteristic of a state when the desire to work has already appeared, but there is not yet sufficient experience to perform all duties efficiently, but there is desire and diligence, conscientiousness. In this case, the manager must be a mentor, an adviser who gives recommendations so that employees can show initiative, independence and creativity. Monitoring the completion of tasks must be constant. There must be mutual respect and goodwill in the team; psychological aspects play an important role in the activities of the leader. But with such democratic manifestations, it is necessary to clearly give orders and demand strict and strict implementation.
A good level of team development requires work experience, fairly good work organization, and cohesion of all team members. In such a team, consultations, advice and hearings are constantly held, initiative is encouraged, comments and clarifications from subordinates are taken into account and recognized with awards. Employees are given a greater share of responsibility and are given the opportunity to make consultative, independent decisions.
And the last, fourth level of team development is characterized by a great desire to work and a creative approach to working in a team of professionals. In such a team, the powers of the leader can easily be assigned to employees at any time, a problem is presented to them, goals are clarified, and then opinions are made on solutions. It is best for a leader in such a team to give the rights to solve problems to top managers, controlling only the key points. You don’t have to interfere in business, you just need to support employees and help them.
E. Shchugoreva
Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn
In accordance with the most common characteristic in management science, the following leadership styles are distinguished: authoritarian (autocratic, directive), democratic (collegial), liberal (liberal-anarchic, permissive, neutral, permissive).
An authoritarian leadership style is characterized by centralization and concentration of power in the hands of one leader. He single-handedly decides all issues, determines the activities of his subordinates, without giving them the opportunity to take the initiative. Subordinates do only what is ordered; at the same time, the information they need is reduced to a minimum. The activities of subordinates are strictly controlled. An autocratic leader uses coercion-based or traditional power.
From a psychological point of view, an authoritarian management style is unfavorable. An autocratic manager has no interest in the employee as an individual. Due to the suppression of their initiative and creative manifestations, employees are passive. As a rule, the majority of them are not satisfied with their work and position in the team. With this leadership style, additional reasons appear that influence the emergence of an unfavorable psychological climate: “sycophants”, “scapegoats” appear, intrigues are created. All this causes increased psychological stress, which is harmful to the mental and physical health of people.
An authoritarian leadership style is appropriate and justified: 1) in situations requiring maximum and rapid mobilization of resources (in emergencies, accidents, military operations, production during war, etc.); 2) in the first stages of creating a new team; 3) in teams with a low level of consciousness of the members of this team; 4) in the army.
The democratic leadership style is characterized by decentralization of power. A democratic leader consults with his subordinates and consults with specialists involved in making decisions. Subordinates receive sufficient information to have an idea of their job prospects. Employee initiative is stimulated. The manager delegates part of his authority to subordinates. When exercising control, it introduces elements of collective self-government. A democratic leader uses primarily reward-based power and reference power (the power of example).
From a psychological point of view, the democratic management style is the most favorable. A democratic leader shows interest and provides friendly attention to employees, takes into account their interests, needs, and characteristics. This has a positive effect on the results of work, initiative, activity of employees, their satisfaction with their work and position in the team. A favorable psychological climate and team cohesion have a positive effect on the mental and physical health of employees. However, with all the positive characteristics of the democratic management style, its implementation is possible only with high intellectual, organizational, psychological and communication abilities.
It is advisable to use a democratic leadership style in production teams, regardless of industry and type of products (services) produced. This leadership style achieves its greatest effectiveness in established teams with microgroups and informal leaders.
The liberal leadership style is characterized by minimal interference from the leader in the activities of the group. A liberal manager does not take an active part in the production activities of his subordinates. He sets tasks for them, indicates the main directions of work, provides them with the necessary resources and gives employees independence in achieving final results. His role comes down to the functions of a consultant, coordinator, organizer, supplier, controller. A liberal leader tries to use power based on rewards, expert power, or reference power.
From a psychological point of view, the liberal leadership style can be viewed from two sides, depending on which team the liberal leader is at the head of. This style gives positive results if the team consists of highly qualified specialists with great abilities for creative independent work, disciplined and responsible. It can also be used in the form of an individual approach to the employee.
The most successful liberal leader manages a team that has energetic and knowledgeable assistants (deputies) who can take on the functions of a leader. In this case, the team is practically led by deputies and decisions are made, and they also resolve conflict situations.
With a liberal leadership style, a strong informal leader can also take over. In this case, the liberal leader must identify the leader’s “platform” and skillfully influence him in order to prevent anarchy, weakening of discipline and the emergence of an unfavorable socio-psychological climate. The most effective liberal style of management is in scientific and creative teams consisting of recognized authorities, talented, gifted people in specific fields of science, technology, culture and art.
If the team has not “grown up” to the liberal style of management, but is still headed by a liberal leader, then such a style turns into a liberal-anarchist (permissive) one. At the same time, “maximum democracy” and “minimum control” lead to the fact that: 1) some employees do not consider it necessary to implement the decisions made; 2) the lack of control on the part of management leaves the work of subordinates to chance; 3) work results are reduced due to lack of control and systematic evaluation; 4) people are not satisfied with their work and their leader. As a result, all this negatively affects the psychological climate in the team.
In some teams, a liberal leader is commanded by his subordinates, and he is considered a “good person” among them. However, this continues until a conflict situation arises. In this case, dissatisfied subordinates become disobedient: the liberal style turns into a permissive one, which leads to conflicts, disorganization and deterioration of labor discipline.
The above description of leadership styles does not exhaust the variety of forms of interaction between managers and subordinates.
In this rapidly changing world, a situational management style is used, which flexibly takes into account the level of psychological development of the team of subordinates.
In addition to the situational management style, the innovative-analytical style is popular and effective (especially in successful Japanese firms), which can ensure organizational survival in conditions of intense market competition. It has:
generating a large number of ideas;
the ability to logically analyze the feasibility and prospects of these ideas;
energy, innovation, sensitivity to new ideas and information;
tolerance for failure;
ability to work with people.
According to the majority of foreign management experts, an effective management style is a participatory (participatory) management style, which is characterized by the following features:
regular meetings between the manager and subordinates;
openness in relations between the manager and subordinates;
involvement of subordinates in the development and adoption of organizational decisions;
delegation (transfer) by the manager of a number of powers and rights to subordinates;
participation of ordinary employees in both planning and implementation of organizational changes;
creation of special groups with the right to make independent decisions (for example, “quality control groups”);
providing the employee with the opportunity to autonomously (separately from other members of the organization) develop problems and new ideas.
The participatory leadership style is most effectively used in scientific organizations, innovative firms, and in knowledge-intensive industries under conditions if:
1) the manager has a high educational and creative level, knows how to appreciate and use the creative suggestions of subordinates; self-assured;
2) subordinates have a high level of knowledge and skills, a need for creativity, independence and personal growth, and interest in work;
3) the goals and objectives facing the organization’s employees require multiple solutions, require theoretical analysis and high professional performance, hard effort and a creative approach.
Thus, considering leadership styles in their entirety, we can conclude that they act as opposites: autocratic-democratic, participative; innovative-analytical - liberal.
An effective person, when choosing a management style, must keep in mind the following circumstances:
- know yourself;
- understand the situation;
- evaluate the chosen management style adequately to the situation and level of subordinates;
- take into account the needs of the group;
- take into account the needs of the situation;
- take into account the needs of subordinates.
"Style is a person." The personal traits of any boss are revealed in influencing subordinates, communicating with partners, and clients. The concept of leadership style is directly related to the essence of management. How do adherents of radically opposing methods solve various management issues? Read our review.
Management methods are varied, but for scientific purposes they are divided into three main groups:
An experienced manager, taking into account the situation and characteristics of the team, selects a set of the most effective measures from each group.
The choice of methods and the frequency of their use are influenced not only by objective reasons, but also by the personal preferences of the manager. “Favorite” skills generally leave an imprint on all business communication with colleagues. Team management styles are a set of methods and measures implemented by the manager.
Kurt Lewin's typology is in demand and relevant today. The psychologist identified three management styles: autocratic, democratic and neutral. Styles differ in management methods, control systems, and the presence or absence of delegation of authority.
The authoritarian leadership style is based largely on organizational and administrative methods, sanctions and regulation. Collegial - social, psychological and economic. The liberal style does not require a clear methodological system.
It is common for an autocrat to concentrate all work processes under his close attention: “Where he is not himself, there is a grave!” He always relies only on his own strength. Typically, an autocrat believes that his subordinates do not like to work, and that they must be forced like “little children.” Gives orders and instructions, insisting on complete obedience. Violation of its requirements is punishable by sanctions. “Minimum democracy, maximum control.” All actions of personnel are clearly regulated by instructions, regulations and require the constant participation of management.
This leadership style in an organization is aimed largely at increasing the efficiency of the work process. It gives results such as: high productivity, profitability, exceeding the plan. On the other hand, the leader chooses a position outside the group, and does not always take into account the socio-psychological climate and collective interests. The subordinate ceases to be a person, but turns into a “bolt” of the bureaucratic system.
Such an advantage as a strong control function sometimes turns into a 25-hour workload a day for a manager! The strengthening of bureaucracy as the organization grows deprives management decisions of efficiency.
Not every manager can handle an authoritarian leadership style. For an adherent of this style, it is important to “maintain authority” without stooping to permissiveness or arbitrariness. Planning tactics, strategies, focusing on results, and not blindly following prescriptions and instructions, will help you avoid pitfalls. An authoritarian leadership style is characterized by maintaining discipline at a high level, so in times of crisis and emergency situations it is simply necessary.
Weaknesses |
|
|
|
Thus, the authoritarian leadership style has many disadvantages, and therefore is effective only with experienced, skillful leadership. Applicable in certain production and crisis situations related to debts, cessation of supplies, and possible bankruptcy. But provided that subordinates agree to such methods and forgive the “king” for the dictator’s habits for the results achieved.
The democratic leadership style is effective in terms of productivity and is not inferior to the autocratic one. Employees under the leadership of a democrat form a cohesive team, are satisfied with their work and labor relations, are active and proactive.
The democratic leader always organizes a discussion of the problem. As they say, “one head thinks good, but two or more are better.” The collective method of making management decisions increases the likelihood of their correctness.
With a collegial style, much time is not lost in the control process, because the manager’s attention is drawn to the results of work, and not the entire progress of work, as with autocratic management. Powers are actively delegated to employees who monitor the results of the work. For a democrat, staff is the main resource and source of information.
Motivation in a team increases due to interest in the employee’s personality. People feel involved in a common cause. This leadership style in an organization allows for the implementation of well-functioning feedback.
This style is applicable in conditions of formation and growth of an enterprise with a fairly stable team. It is very useful in situations of crisis in the internal environment of the company, when problems arise in relationships and work processes.
The presence of undeniable advantages of collegial management does not mean that the authoritarian style has been “discarded.” In management practice, a combined leadership style is actively used - “authoritarian-democratic”, combining the advantages of the two styles.
A complex approach containing contradictions at its core. What should you prioritize: creativity (democratic methods) or discipline (organizational methods)? The selection of the main parameter for a particular situation is carried out by ranking factors or a combination of methods. For example, maintaining democracy in the decision-making process and authoritarianism at the stage of their implementation.
Basic leadership styles should be applied as appropriate to the situation. An experienced manager has different approaches. But it is impossible to radically change styles due to psychological inclination towards certain management methods. An autocrat cannot turn into a democrat overnight, but he can adjust his own management style to suit the circumstances.
A diverse arsenal of methods and methods of personnel management contributes to successful activities in the field of management. The development of these skills cannot happen on its own, just as managerial talent does not arise spontaneously; it must be developed and trained.
Management in a wide variety of areas of human activity is one of the most important functions. The conditions of a market economy gave it particular relevance. To properly manage people, the head of an organization must choose a certain style of behavior. It is this that must be demonstrated in relations with subordinates, leading them to the intended goal. In other words, for the normal functioning of an enterprise, the presence of one or another leadership style is necessary. This is the main characteristic of the effectiveness of a senior manager. The role of a leader's management style cannot be overestimated. After all, the success of the company, the dynamics of its development, the motivation of employees, their attitude to their responsibilities, relationships in the team and much more will depend on it.
What does the word "leader" mean? This is the one who “leads by the hand.” Every organization must have a person who is responsible for supervising all departments operating in the enterprise. This type of responsibility involves monitoring the actions of employees. This is the essence of the work of every leader.
The ultimate primary goal of a senior manager is to achieve the company's goals. The manager does this work without the help of his subordinates. And his usual manner of behavior towards the team should motivate him to work. This is the manager's management style. What are the roots of this concept?
The word "style" is of Greek origin. Initially, this was the name given to a rod intended for writing on a wax board. Somewhat later, the word “style” began to be used in a slightly different meaning. It began to indicate the nature of the handwriting. This can also be said about the manager's management style. It is a kind of signature in the actions of a senior manager.
A leader's style in managing a team can be different. But in general, they depend on the leadership and administrative qualities of the person in this position. In the process of carrying out labor activity, the formation of an individual type of leader, his “handwriting” occurs. This suggests that it is impossible to find two identical bosses with the same style. This phenomenon is individual, as it is determined by the specific characteristics of a particular person, reflecting his peculiarity of working with personnel.
It is believed that the happy person is the one who goes to work with pleasure every morning. And this directly depends on his boss, on what management style the leader uses, on his relationship with his subordinates. Management theory paid attention to this issue at the dawn of its creation, that is, almost a hundred years ago. According to the concepts put forward by her, already at that time there was a whole range of styles of work and leadership management. Somewhat later, others began to join them. In this regard, modern management theory considers the presence of many leadership styles. Let's describe some of them in more detail.
This leadership style is based on the participation of subordinates in decision making with the division of responsibility between them. The name of this type of work for a senior manager comes to us from the Latin language. In it, demos means “power of the people.” The democratic management style of a leader is considered the best today. Based on the research data, it is 1.5-2 times more effective than all other methods of communication between a boss and his subordinates.
If a manager uses a democratic management style, then he relies on the initiative of the team. At the same time, there is equal and active participation of all employees in the processes of discussing the company’s goals.
In a democratic leadership style, there is interaction between the leader and subordinates. At the same time, a feeling of mutual understanding and trust arises in the team. However, it is worth noting that the desire of a senior manager to listen to the opinions of company employees on certain issues does not occur because he himself does not understand anything. The manager's democratic management style indicates that such a boss is aware that new ideas arise during the discussion of problems. They will certainly speed up the process of achieving the goal and improve the quality of work.
If, of all the styles and methods of management, a leader has chosen a democratic one, this means that he will not impose his will on his subordinates. How will he act in this case? Such a leader will prefer to use incentive and persuasion methods. He will resort to sanctions only when all other methods have been completely exhausted.
The manager's democratic management style is the most favorable from the point of view of psychological impact. Such a boss takes a sincere interest in employees and provides them with friendly attention, taking into account their needs. Such relationships have a positive effect on the results of the team’s work, on the activity and initiative of specialists. People become satisfied with their own work. They are also satisfied with their position in the team. Cohesion among employees and favorable psychological conditions have a positive impact on the physical and moral health of people.
Of course, management styles and leadership qualities are closely related concepts. Thus, given the democratic nature of communication with subordinates, the boss must enjoy high authority among employees. He also needs to have excellent organizational, intellectual and psychological-communicative abilities. Otherwise, the implementation of this style will become ineffective. The democratic type of leadership has two varieties. Let's take a closer look at them.
When using it, most of the problems that the team faces are resolved at the time of their general discussion. A leader who uses a deliberative style in his activities often consults with subordinates without showing his own superiority. He does not shift responsibility to employees for the consequences that may occur as a result of decisions made.
Leaders of the deliberative leadership type make extensive use of two-way communication with their subordinates. They trust their employees. Of course, only the manager makes the most important decisions, but at the same time, specialists are given the right to independently solve specific problems.
This is another kind of democratic type of leadership. Its main idea is to involve employees not only in making certain decisions, but also in exercising control over their implementation. In this case, the leader completely trusts his subordinates. Moreover, communication between them can be described as open. The boss behaves at the level of one of the team members. At the same time, any employee is given the right to freely express their own opinion on a variety of issues without fear of subsequent negative reactions. In this case, responsibility for failures in work is shared between the manager and subordinates. This style allows you to create an effective system of labor motivation. This makes it possible to successfully achieve the goals that the enterprise faces.
This type of leadership is also called free. After all, it presupposes a tendency towards condescension, tolerance and undemandingness. The liberal management style is characterized by complete freedom of decisions for employees. At the same time, the manager takes minimal participation in this process. He withdraws himself from the functions assigned to him of supervision and control over the activities of his subordinates.
We can say that types of leaders and management styles have a close relationship with each other. Thus, a person who is insufficiently competent and unsure of his official position allows himself to have a liberal attitude in a team. Such a leader is able to take decisive steps only after receiving instructions from a superior. He avoids responsibility in every possible way when obtaining unsatisfactory results. Resolution of important issues in a company where such a manager works often takes place without his participation. To consolidate his authority, the liberal only pays his subordinates undeserved bonuses and provides various types of benefits.
Where can such a direction be chosen among all the existing management styles of a leader? Both the organization of work and the level of discipline in the company must be the highest. This is possible, for example, in a partnership of famous lawyers or in a writers' union, where all employees are engaged in creative activities.
The liberal management style from a psychological point of view can be considered in two ways. Everything will depend on which specialists carry out this guidance. A similar style will achieve a positive result where the team consists of responsible, disciplined, highly qualified employees who are capable of independently performing creative work. Such leadership can also be successfully implemented if there are knowledgeable assistants in the company.
There are also teams in which subordinates command their boss. He is simply considered a “good man” among them. But this cannot continue for long. When any conflict situation arises, dissatisfied employees stop obeying. This leads to the emergence of a permissive style, leading to a decrease in labor discipline, the development of conflicts and other negative phenomena. But in such cases, the manager simply withdraws from the affairs of the enterprise. The most important thing for him is to maintain good relations with his subordinates.
It refers to the authoritative type of leadership. It is based on the boss’s desire to assert his influence. A leader with an authoritarian management style provides company employees with only a minimal amount of information. This is due to his distrust of his subordinates. Such a leader seeks to get rid of talented people and strong employees. The best in this case is the one who is able to understand his thoughts. This leadership style creates an atmosphere of intrigue and gossip in the enterprise. At the same time, the independence of workers remains minimal. Subordinates seek to resolve any issues that arise with management. After all, no one can predict how management will react to a particular situation.
A leader with an authoritarian management style is simply unpredictable. People don't even dare tell him the bad news. As a result, such a boss lives in complete confidence that everything turned out exactly as he expected. Employees do not ask questions or argue, even in cases where they see significant errors in the decision made by the manager. The result of the activities of such a senior manager is the suppression of the initiative of subordinates, which interferes with their work.
With an authoritarian leadership style, all power is concentrated in the hands of one person. Only he is able to single-handedly resolve all issues, determine the activities of subordinates and not give them the opportunity to make independent decisions. In this case, employees only do what they are ordered to do. That is why all information for them is reduced to a minimum. A leader with an authoritarian style of team management tightly controls the activities of his subordinates. Such a boss has enough power in his hands to impose his will on the employees.
In the eyes of such a leader, a subordinate is a person who has an aversion to work and avoids it whenever possible. This becomes the reason for constant coercion of the employee, control over him and the implementation of punishments. In this case, the moods and emotions of subordinates are not taken into account. The manager has a distance from his team. At the same time, the autocrat specifically appeals to the lowest level of needs of his subordinates, believing that it is the most important for them.
If we consider this leadership style from a psychological point of view, it is the most unfavorable. After all, the manager in this case does not perceive the employee as an individual. Employees' creativity is constantly suppressed, causing them to become passive. People become dissatisfied with their work and their own position in the team. The psychological climate at the enterprise also becomes unfavorable. Intrigues often arise in the team and sycophants appear. This increases the stress load on people, which is harmful to their moral and physical health.
The use of an authoritarian style is effective only under certain circumstances. For example, in combat conditions, in emergency situations, in the army and in a team in which the consciousness of its members is at the lowest level. The authoritarian leadership style has its own variations. Let's take a closer look at them.
The manager who has adopted this type of personnel management believes that by nature, most people are stupid and lazy. Consequently, they try not to work. In this regard, such a manager considers it his duty to force employees to fulfill their duties. He does not allow himself participation and softness.
What can it mean when a person chooses an aggressive one among all management styles? The personality of the leader in this case has special characteristics. Such a person is rude. He limits contact with subordinates, keeping them at a distance. When communicating with employees, such a boss often raises his voice, insults people and actively gestures.
This type of leadership is characterized by its selectivity. Such a boss shows aggression towards his employees and at the same time, helpfulness and pliability towards the higher management body.
A manager who has adopted this type of personnel management seems to be the only one who knows and can do everything. That is why such a boss assumes responsibilities for the sole resolution of issues related to the activities of the team and production. Such a leader does not tolerate objections from his subordinates and is prone to hasty conclusions, which are not always correct.
The basis of this type of relationship between the leader and subordinates is authoritarianism. However, the boss still gives his employees the opportunity to participate in some decisions, while limiting their scope of activity. The results of the team’s work, together with the system of punishments that dominates, are also evaluated with some rewards.
The individual management style of a leader can be very different. Moreover, all of its types given above simply cannot be found in their pure form. Here there can only be a predominance of certain characteristics.
This is why defining the best leadership style is not easy to define. A senior manager needs to know the above classification and be able to apply each of the categories of personnel management, depending on the situation and the presence of a specific task. This, in fact, is the art of a true leader.
